Matt Gaetz tapped for AG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no chance the Senate confirms Gaetz. They've already exhibited a spine by rejecting Rick Scott, the Maga choice for Majority Leader. The question is what happens then? If Trump appoints Gaetz as a recess appointment it will be chaos. But Trump likes chaos, so... It's going to be a mess and a Constitutional crisis as Trump uses the DOJ to destroy his opponents with or without Senate approval. Trump has taken his indictments very, very personally and it is vengeance that motivates him more than anything.

You cannot appoint Gaetz as a recess appointment unless the Thune signs off on it. That's likely not going to happen since there are many GOP Senators who would block this nomination.

Thune already agreed to recess appointments prior to winning the senate majority post.
Trump knew he was going to name Gaetz and the “Will you commit to recess appointments?” was a litmus test.

I still think they should not confirm Gaetz. Most conservatives like his politics but still think he’s a personal liability.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can notionally "sign off" on recess appointments (which by the way Thune was not explicit about). However, when GOP senators are specifically unwilling to allow someone through without due process, most likely the case for DOD, DNI and AG, it doesn't matter what was notionally said. Getting back to Thune, he specifically stated that "everything is on the table" and that he has committed to getting the nominations processed promptly. It's quite different than saying, "yes I will do recess appointments" to get your loser nominations into their posts. The fact that Scott didn't get past the first round of voting should tell you where the other GOP senators stand on MAGA threats. And, I think Trump knows this quite well which is why he didn't explicitly endorse Scott outright (knowing he was going to fail because most GOP senators can't stand the buffoon) so he used his minions to endorse him backhandedly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of DOJ officials being quoted anonymously and being very critical of the MG nomination.

Ignoring the substance of their critiques this is simply highly unprofessional behavior. I don’t like the nomination either, but DOJ employees must be extremely apolitical and this kinda of thing pisses people off.

It is not and should not be political to say that a man who has barely practiced law and is currently under investigation for serious ethics violations by the House of Representatives and who until recently eas the subject of an investigation into sex trafficking and other crimes, and who has shown himself generally to be thoughtless, antagonistic, and straight up gross, should not be Attorney General of the United States.

Like if he were an actual lawyer without all of these ethics issues and the criminal investigation and the truly obnoxious public behavior, I would agree with you -- regardless of your opinion on his politics, rack and file at the DOJ should keep it to themselves. It's a political appointment and the President is entitled to his pick.

But this is an offensive, grossly unqualified, deeply compromised candidate. I have zero issues with people within DOJ expressing their dismay. This is a ridiculous pick.

The president nominates and the senate confirms or rejects. The civil service is supposed to be apolitical and in exchange the civil service is supposed to be in a privileged position insulated from politics.

There is simply no constitutional requirement that a nominee be “good”. So, yes, commenting on POTUS-elect’s picks is a political move, no matter how common sense the substance of the criticism may seem.

Think of it this way, if through some miracle MG is confined, he now has all the cover he needs to fire everyone at DOJ and/or every single official who commented should resign. There is a reason while all this criticism has been done anonymously.

This is the fundamental paradox of the Trump presidency: everyone in the “resistance” breaks political norms in their criticism of him and then they can’t understand why Republican voters elected a guy who shreds every norm that we’ve ever applied to the Presidency.

The standard for the civil service must be: “is it legal” not “do I agree with it.”

No. The standard for civil service is competence, ethics and, above all, LOYALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION.

That’s the problem with Trump selecting people who are loyal to him. You may not be aware, but civil servants swear an oath to the Constitution.

If you are American you should at the very least defend that standard.

I would not pick MG. But that isn’t the issue. Is there anything unconstitutional about the MG nomination? No, of course not. So they need to STFU and carry on their duties or resign.

But anonymously sniping in the press like scared, insecure little teenagers is precisely the kind of thing that makes people lose trust in our institutions. It is also the same exact mistake that the left keeps making with Trump. It has been happening for almost ten years now starting most prominently with the NYT declaring that institutional norms did not apply to Donald Trump because of the threat he posed. By ignoring institutional norms, the resistance exposes that it didn’t believe in them in the first place. It also makes them look small and petty. The net effect is to take some of the spotlight away from Trump’s bad acts thereby vindicating Trump and generating sympathy for Trump among his supporters.

Trump really is some kind of kryptonite to the left that leads them to make unforced, dumb errors that the left will later regret. “Gee, how come the right won’t vote to protect the institutional norms we ignore?”

Of course civil servants should refuse unlawful orders. But that isn’t the issue here. The issue is the nomination of MG.

The ethical issues are for the senate to consider at the nomination process or subsequently as part of an impeachment process. Each DOJ member is always free to resign.

The substance of the criticism is correct, but a group that wants to be insulated from politics shouldn’t be out there engaging in politics. Simple as that.

[Anonymous]

There are at least a dozen Senate Republicans who now wish they had convicted Trump in the 2nd impeachment. They aren’t going to rubber stamp his unhinged Cabinet picks. They just need to authorize FBI background investigations of the nominees and let that play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of DOJ officials being quoted anonymously and being very critical of the MG nomination.

Ignoring the substance of their critiques this is simply highly unprofessional behavior. I don’t like the nomination either, but DOJ employees must be extremely apolitical and this kinda of thing pisses people off.

It is not and should not be political to say that a man who has barely practiced law and is currently under investigation for serious ethics violations by the House of Representatives and who until recently eas the subject of an investigation into sex trafficking and other crimes, and who has shown himself generally to be thoughtless, antagonistic, and straight up gross, should not be Attorney General of the United States.

Like if he were an actual lawyer without all of these ethics issues and the criminal investigation and the truly obnoxious public behavior, I would agree with you -- regardless of your opinion on his politics, rack and file at the DOJ should keep it to themselves. It's a political appointment and the President is entitled to his pick.

But this is an offensive, grossly unqualified, deeply compromised candidate. I have zero issues with people within DOJ expressing their dismay. This is a ridiculous pick.

The president nominates and the senate confirms or rejects. The civil service is supposed to be apolitical and in exchange the civil service is supposed to be in a privileged position insulated from politics.

There is simply no constitutional requirement that a nominee be “good”. So, yes, commenting on POTUS-elect’s picks is a political move, no matter how common sense the substance of the criticism may seem.

Think of it this way, if through some miracle MG is confined, he now has all the cover he needs to fire everyone at DOJ and/or every single official who commented should resign. There is a reason while all this criticism has been done anonymously.

This is the fundamental paradox of the Trump presidency: everyone in the “resistance” breaks political norms in their criticism of him and then they can’t understand why Republican voters elected a guy who shreds every norm that we’ve ever applied to the Presidency.

The standard for the civil service must be: “is it legal” not “do I agree with it.”

No. The standard for civil service is competence, ethics and, above all, LOYALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION.

That’s the problem with Trump selecting people who are loyal to him. You may not be aware, but civil servants swear an oath to the Constitution.

If you are American you should at the very least defend that standard.

I would not pick MG. But that isn’t the issue. Is there anything unconstitutional about the MG nomination? No, of course not. So they need to STFU and carry on their duties or resign.

But anonymously sniping in the press like scared, insecure little teenagers is precisely the kind of thing that makes people lose trust in our institutions. It is also the same exact mistake that the left keeps making with Trump. It has been happening for almost ten years now starting most prominently with the NYT declaring that institutional norms did not apply to Donald Trump because of the threat he posed. By ignoring institutional norms, the resistance exposes that it didn’t believe in them in the first place. It also makes them look small and petty. The net effect is to take some of the spotlight away from Trump’s bad acts thereby vindicating Trump and generating sympathy for Trump among his supporters.

Trump really is some kind of kryptonite to the left that leads them to make unforced, dumb errors that the left will later regret. “Gee, how come the right won’t vote to protect the institutional norms we ignore?”

Of course civil servants should refuse unlawful orders. But that isn’t the issue here. The issue is the nomination of MG.

The ethical issues are for the senate to consider at the nomination process or subsequently as part of an impeachment process. Each DOJ member is always free to resign.

The substance of the criticism is correct, but a group that wants to be insulated from politics shouldn’t be out there engaging in politics. Simple as that.

Clearly the people at DOJ believe Gaetz is a threat to the Constitution. Having themselves sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, they should speak up. But, they should also put their names to their concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are at least a dozen Senate Republicans who now wish they had convicted Trump in the 2nd impeachment. They aren’t going to rubber stamp his unhinged Cabinet picks. They just need to authorize FBI background investigations of the nominees and let that play out.

They were silent then and I expect they will be silent now. I hope to be wrong, but the disdain with which Senate Republicans treat this country has been disappointing to say the least.

Good luck to them!

[Anonymous]

Gross.

[Anonymous]

[jsteele]

You will never go broke counting on Congressional Republicans to bend over for Trump:

[Anonymous]

As someone who was sexually abused I am sick and the fact my family voted for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of DOJ officials being quoted anonymously and being very critical of the MG nomination.

Ignoring the substance of their critiques this is simply highly unprofessional behavior. I don’t like the nomination either, but DOJ employees must be extremely apolitical and this kinda of thing pisses people off.

It is not and should not be political to say that a man who has barely practiced law and is currently under investigation for serious ethics violations by the House of Representatives and who until recently eas the subject of an investigation into sex trafficking and other crimes, and who has shown himself generally to be thoughtless, antagonistic, and straight up gross, should not be Attorney General of the United States.

Like if he were an actual lawyer without all of these ethics issues and the criminal investigation and the truly obnoxious public behavior, I would agree with you -- regardless of your opinion on his politics, rack and file at the DOJ should keep it to themselves. It's a political appointment and the President is entitled to his pick.

But this is an offensive, grossly unqualified, deeply compromised candidate. I have zero issues with people within DOJ expressing their dismay. This is a ridiculous pick.

The president nominates and the senate confirms or rejects. The civil service is supposed to be apolitical and in exchange the civil service is supposed to be in a privileged position insulated from politics.

There is simply no constitutional requirement that a nominee be “good”. So, yes, commenting on POTUS-elect’s picks is a political move, no matter how common sense the substance of the criticism may seem.

Think of it this way, if through some miracle MG is confined, he now has all the cover he needs to fire everyone at DOJ and/or every single official who commented should resign. There is a reason while all this criticism has been done anonymously.

This is the fundamental paradox of the Trump presidency: everyone in the “resistance” breaks political norms in their criticism of him and then they can’t understand why Republican voters elected a guy who shreds every norm that we’ve ever applied to the Presidency.

The standard for the civil service must be: “is it legal” not “do I agree with it.”

No. The standard for civil service is competence, ethics and, above all, LOYALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION.

That’s the problem with Trump selecting people who are loyal to him. You may not be aware, but civil servants swear an oath to the Constitution.

If you are American you should at the very least defend that standard.

I would not pick MG. But that isn’t the issue. Is there anything unconstitutional about the MG nomination? No, of course not. So they need to STFU and carry on their duties or resign.

But anonymously sniping in the press like scared, insecure little teenagers is precisely the kind of thing that makes people lose trust in our institutions. It is also the same exact mistake that the left keeps making with Trump. It has been happening for almost ten years now starting most prominently with the NYT declaring that institutional norms did not apply to Donald Trump because of the threat he posed. By ignoring institutional norms, the resistance exposes that it didn’t believe in them in the first place. It also makes them look small and petty. The net effect is to take some of the spotlight away from Trump’s bad acts thereby vindicating Trump and generating sympathy for Trump among his supporters.

Trump really is some kind of kryptonite to the left that leads them to make unforced, dumb errors that the left will later regret. “Gee, how come the right won’t vote to protect the institutional norms we ignore?”

Of course civil servants should refuse unlawful orders. But that isn’t the issue here. The issue is the nomination of MG.

The ethical issues are for the senate to consider at the nomination process or subsequently as part of an impeachment process. Each DOJ member is always free to resign.

The substance of the criticism is correct, but a group that wants to be insulated from politics shouldn’t be out there engaging in politics. Simple as that.

The problem is that with this pick and the things being said in public about trying to circumvent the Senate process and go after person who were part of prosecutions, says directly they are not being protected from politics. Nominating someone as ridiculously unqualified as Matt Gatez to be AG says something and if confirmed would smear the integrity of a whole slew of institutions from DOJ to FBI to ATF to etc. Quite frankly they should all be awarded for raising their voices to say Matt Gaetz is alarmingly unqualified.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:You will never go broke counting on Congressional Republicans to bend over for Trump:

What do they have energy for is the question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of DOJ officials being quoted anonymously and being very critical of the MG nomination.

Ignoring the substance of their critiques this is simply highly unprofessional behavior. I don’t like the nomination either, but DOJ employees must be extremely apolitical and this kinda of thing pisses people off.

It is not and should not be political to say that a man who has barely practiced law and is currently under investigation for serious ethics violations by the House of Representatives and who until recently eas the subject of an investigation into sex trafficking and other crimes, and who has shown himself generally to be thoughtless, antagonistic, and straight up gross, should not be Attorney General of the United States.

Like if he were an actual lawyer without all of these ethics issues and the criminal investigation and the truly obnoxious public behavior, I would agree with you -- regardless of your opinion on his politics, rack and file at the DOJ should keep it to themselves. It's a political appointment and the President is entitled to his pick.

But this is an offensive, grossly unqualified, deeply compromised candidate. I have zero issues with people within DOJ expressing their dismay. This is a ridiculous pick.

The president nominates and the senate confirms or rejects. The civil service is supposed to be apolitical and in exchange the civil service is supposed to be in a privileged position insulated from politics.

There is simply no constitutional requirement that a nominee be “good”. So, yes, commenting on POTUS-elect’s picks is a political move, no matter how common sense the substance of the criticism may seem.

Think of it this way, if through some miracle MG is confined, he now has all the cover he needs to fire everyone at DOJ and/or every single official who commented should resign. There is a reason while all this criticism has been done anonymously.

This is the fundamental paradox of the Trump presidency: everyone in the “resistance” breaks political norms in their criticism of him and then they can’t understand why Republican voters elected a guy who shreds every norm that we’ve ever applied to the Presidency.

The standard for the civil service must be: “is it legal” not “do I agree with it.”

No. The standard for civil service is competence, ethics and, above all, LOYALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION.

That’s the problem with Trump selecting people who are loyal to him. You may not be aware, but civil servants swear an oath to the Constitution.

If you are American you should at the very least defend that standard.

I would not pick MG. But that isn’t the issue. Is there anything unconstitutional about the MG nomination? No, of course not. So they need to STFU and carry on their duties or resign.

But anonymously sniping in the press like scared, insecure little teenagers is precisely the kind of thing that makes people lose trust in our institutions. It is also the same exact mistake that the left keeps making with Trump. It has been happening for almost ten years now starting most prominently with the NYT declaring that institutional norms did not apply to Donald Trump because of the threat he posed. By ignoring institutional norms, the resistance exposes that it didn’t believe in them in the first place. It also makes them look small and petty. The net effect is to take some of the spotlight away from Trump’s bad acts thereby vindicating Trump and generating sympathy for Trump among his supporters.

Trump really is some kind of kryptonite to the left that leads them to make unforced, dumb errors that the left will later regret. “Gee, how come the right won’t vote to protect the institutional norms we ignore?”

Of course civil servants should refuse unlawful orders. But that isn’t the issue here. The issue is the nomination of MG.

The ethical issues are for the senate to consider at the nomination process or subsequently as part of an impeachment process. Each DOJ member is always free to resign.

The substance of the criticism is correct, but a group that wants to be insulated from politics shouldn’t be out there engaging in politics. Simple as that.

Clearly the people at DOJ believe Gaetz is a threat to the Constitution. Having themselves sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, they should speak up. But, they should also put their names to their concerns.

The bolded is precisely the problem! The standard is not “is he a threat to the constitution?” That is contained nowhere in our laws because that is such an impossible standard. Everybody is a theoretical threat to the constitution and thus it is an impossible standard. The standard is whether it is constitutional or not. If by some miracle he is confirmed then absolutely, when he orders something they is illegal they should refuse and/or resign. But “he might threaten the constitution” is a very, very silly reason to torch institutional norms.

Putting their names to the criticism would be more honorable and defensible.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:You will never go broke counting on Congressional Republicans to bend over for Trump:

Bob Costa is a solid source. Thanks for dashing my last fleeting hopes that a few GOP senators would have enough spine and decency to protect the institution and country they see.

[Anonymous]

I hope he gets the AG spot. Might cost them a few special elections, and control of Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope he gets the AG spot. Might cost them a few special elections, and control of Congress.

Yes, that is potentially the only silver leaning in this situation. Voters can be fickle and eventually the pendulum will swing from the right back to the left.